G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc (More info?)
The idea to "undo" opening theory as it specifically applies to the FIDE
starting chess setup and accompanying rules of play (Orthodox Chess) by
choosing a different starting setup and/or accompanying rules of play
(Variant Chess) is at least one and a half century old. For the most part,
the proponents of the idea seem to dislike the fact that serious players
need to become familiar with an ever expanding body of theory that requires
quite a bit of memorization. Its detractors, on the other hand, generally
feel that such liberties will open up Pandora's box and organized chess
will lose its pre-eminence as a serious international game.
I would like to point out that the debate could be refocused on the merits
of carrying out opening theory research *per se* as a rather challenging
intellectual activity. From that perspective, "undoing" opening theory may
not be such a laudable goal after all, while researching opening theory for
one or more chess variants may very well be.
Baseline or Shuffle Chess represents a time-honored approach to generating
chess variants. To this effect, the key deviation from Orthodox Chess is
that the FIDE starting setup gets modified. More specifically, all pawns
remain on their original, orthodox squares, i.e., on the 2nd and 7th rows
of the board. However, the pieces on the 1st and 8th rows are generally
placed on squares on those rows that are different from those mandated by
the FIDE rules (nevertheless, the shuffled white pieces are still on the
1st row while the shuffled black pieces still occupy the 8th row). Over
time, it was realized that Baseline Chess variants could be "ridiculously
wild"... Thus, a symmetry constraint was introduced which requires that
white and black pieces face each other symmetrically in the starting
position behind their respective pawn formations. Furthermore, the ad-
ditional requirement that each side possess bishops of opposite color seems
to have been widely accepted.
Presently, Chess960 or Fischer Random Chess seems to represent the leading
edge of Baseline Chess in historical evolutionary terms. Chess960 imposes
an additional constraint on the starting setup, namely, that the King be
flanked by the Rooks. To this effect, the FIDE rules applicable to castling
are suitably extended. Chess960 allows for 960 different starting setups.
However, due to symmetry, only 480 of its starting setups would require
separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position is one of them.
I am of the humble opinion that, what with its 480 substantively distinct
variants, Chess960 is still...overkill! Instead, Baseline Chess variant
enthusiasts may want to focus on...Chess18. Chess18 comprises a small
subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
their orthodox squares. Thus, no extension to the FIDE rules applicable to
castling is necessary. To boot, all 18 variants are substantively distinct
and would require separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position
is still one of them.
Chess18 would still make "booking up" quite a formidable challenge. Chess
playing computer programs could easily accommodate it. Moreover, dedicated
chess position databases could be easily modified to support Chess18 opening
theory research and training.
Could Chess18 opening theory research and play galvanize enough interest
over the long haul so as to create a hobbyist subculture of some permanency?
Major Cat
The idea to "undo" opening theory as it specifically applies to the FIDE
starting chess setup and accompanying rules of play (Orthodox Chess) by
choosing a different starting setup and/or accompanying rules of play
(Variant Chess) is at least one and a half century old. For the most part,
the proponents of the idea seem to dislike the fact that serious players
need to become familiar with an ever expanding body of theory that requires
quite a bit of memorization. Its detractors, on the other hand, generally
feel that such liberties will open up Pandora's box and organized chess
will lose its pre-eminence as a serious international game.
I would like to point out that the debate could be refocused on the merits
of carrying out opening theory research *per se* as a rather challenging
intellectual activity. From that perspective, "undoing" opening theory may
not be such a laudable goal after all, while researching opening theory for
one or more chess variants may very well be.
Baseline or Shuffle Chess represents a time-honored approach to generating
chess variants. To this effect, the key deviation from Orthodox Chess is
that the FIDE starting setup gets modified. More specifically, all pawns
remain on their original, orthodox squares, i.e., on the 2nd and 7th rows
of the board. However, the pieces on the 1st and 8th rows are generally
placed on squares on those rows that are different from those mandated by
the FIDE rules (nevertheless, the shuffled white pieces are still on the
1st row while the shuffled black pieces still occupy the 8th row). Over
time, it was realized that Baseline Chess variants could be "ridiculously
wild"... Thus, a symmetry constraint was introduced which requires that
white and black pieces face each other symmetrically in the starting
position behind their respective pawn formations. Furthermore, the ad-
ditional requirement that each side possess bishops of opposite color seems
to have been widely accepted.
Presently, Chess960 or Fischer Random Chess seems to represent the leading
edge of Baseline Chess in historical evolutionary terms. Chess960 imposes
an additional constraint on the starting setup, namely, that the King be
flanked by the Rooks. To this effect, the FIDE rules applicable to castling
are suitably extended. Chess960 allows for 960 different starting setups.
However, due to symmetry, only 480 of its starting setups would require
separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position is one of them.
I am of the humble opinion that, what with its 480 substantively distinct
variants, Chess960 is still...overkill! Instead, Baseline Chess variant
enthusiasts may want to focus on...Chess18. Chess18 comprises a small
subset of Chess960 variants. This subset maintains the King and Rooks on
their orthodox squares. Thus, no extension to the FIDE rules applicable to
castling is necessary. To boot, all 18 variants are substantively distinct
and would require separate study and analysis. The FIDE starting position
is still one of them.
Chess18 would still make "booking up" quite a formidable challenge. Chess
playing computer programs could easily accommodate it. Moreover, dedicated
chess position databases could be easily modified to support Chess18 opening
theory research and training.
Could Chess18 opening theory research and play galvanize enough interest
over the long haul so as to create a hobbyist subculture of some permanency?
Major Cat